Archaeology and the Queensland School Curriculum

Hearts and minds: Public archaeology and the Queensland school curriculum Stephen Nichols, Jonathan Prangnell and Michael Haslam Abstract archaeology and education have been considered at length The school education system is an important public by a number of authors (e.g. Barlow 1990; Davis 2000; sphere where popular notions of archaeology and the Hamilakis 2004; MacKenzie and Stone 1990; Nzewunwa archaeological past are produced and reproduced. Within 1990). As Davis (2000:194) points out, education is ‘a the framework of an interpretive public archaeology, primary mode for transmitting society’s knowledge, values schools represent a significant social context in which and beliefs’. Consequently, the education system is a key archaeologists might seek meaningful engagement with the social site at which public constructions of archaeology and wider community. Analysis of the Queensland Education the archaeological past are produced and reproduced. Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE) syllabus Jeppson and Brauer (2003:83) urge archaeologists to reveals that there are many opportunities for the inclusion of embrace this ‘realm of cultural production and reproduction Australian archaeology examples in the curricula of both as a way to open up a greater space for archaeology’s primary and secondary schools. In this paper we develop a participation in public debate’. In this view, the role of public outreach strategy for engaging the Queensland archaeology in educational curricula is an important public school curriculum and report on two case studies from archaeological issue. southeast Queensland where this strategy was implemented. Australian archaeology and the education system Introduction Recent discussions surrounding archaeological In recent times the conceptual framework of public education in Australia have mainly focussed on the archaeology has been expanded beyond traditional ‘public archaeology curriculum at university level (Beck and Balme interest’ models to include the notion of an active, 2005; Colley 2003, 2004; Hall et al. 2005; Lydon 2002). interpretive conjunction between archaeology and society Such discussions have been necessitated by a variety of (Derry 2003; Hodder 1991, 1995; Malloy 2003; McGimsey factors, including the professional and ethical requirements and Davis 2000; Merriman 2004; Shanks and McGuire of a growing heritage management sector, and the 1996). Such a conjunction explicitly recognises the inherent colonisation of our higher education environments by the political dimensions of the archaeological endeavour forces of so-called ‘academic capitalism’ (see Hamilakis and seeks to articulate the disciplinary elements of 2004). However, while the teaching and learning of academic archaeology, ‘salvage’ archaeology and heritage archaeology in Australian universities is a critical issue for management in a purposeful and applied relationship with the future of the profession, less attention has been given to the wider community. Within this expanded framework, the the place of archaeology in our primary and secondary goals of public outreach in archaeology are no longer school systems. Although statistics show that participation defined purely in terms of communicating information or in university education has steadily increased over the last raising awareness, but also as a means of bringing an 10 years, fewer than 20% of Australian adults have a ‘archaeological perspective’ to contemporary social bachelors degree (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005) and discourse and as a way for professional archaeologists, from only a small number of these will have undertaken all branches of the discipline, to engage with both local and archaeology courses during their university experience. It global processes of change. would seem that for the vast majority of Australians any In order to develop this broader interpretive approach to formal educational experience with archaeology is limited public outreach in Australia, it is necessary to identify and to their school years. strategically engage with those specific social contexts in As a state government responsibility, the school which the ethical practice of Australian archaeology can be curriculum varies between each of the states and territories made both meaningful and relevant to the daily realities of of Australia and there is currently very little data available an increasingly diverse range of non-archaeological regarding the institutionalised use of archaeology within the audiences. We propose that these contexts are to be found different educational systems. With respect to the New within four major ‘public activity areas’ of current South Wales high school curriculum, Colley (2000) archaeological practice: the operation of our compliance- suggests that archaeology is mostly associated with the based heritage management systems; our ongoing ancient history syllabus and involves overseas examples of interactions with local and descendent communities; the popular classical sites, such as Pompeii. Furthermore, these representation of archaeology in popular culture, including examples are often delivered in traditional classroom mass media, museums, tourism, literature and art; and, the settings by teachers with limited knowledge of archaeology focus here, archaeological teaching and learning in our or access to suitable archaeological resources. This is educational institutions. consistent with anecdotal evidence from Queensland. The The social and political connections between results of a recent survey in Western Australia (Balme and Wilson 2004) show that school is not considered an important source of information about archaeology for School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, recent school-leavers and that popular constructions of Australia. Email: [email protected]. archaeology among ‘educated young Australians’ are Australian Archaeology, Number 61, 2005 71 Hearts and minds: Public archaeology and the Queensland school curriculum characterised by a number of common misconceptions, geography, economics, politics, sociology, anthropology, including the notion that there is no archaeology to do in law, psychology and ethics’ (Queensland School Australia, and that archaeology has little contemporary Curriculum Council 2000:1). relevance to Australian society. Similarly, surveys of In overview, the practical teaching guidelines of the archaeology undergraduate students in Sydney (Colley syllabus are contained within 120 short statements, known 2005) demonstrate that although school may be a as Core Contents, concerning what students should learn at significant context in which some people develop a general each of the various educational levels from Years 1 to 10. interest in archaeology, such interest is predominantly based Teachers are required to formulate their teaching plans and on Old World and classical themes together with various to choose activities that illustrate and support these Core romantic images of archaeology as adventure and discovery Contents. In the following analysis we provide a detailed in ‘exotic’ overseas locations. Owen and Steele (2005) show examination of the Queensland SOSE syllabus to that perceptions of archaeology amongst primary school demonstrate how the Core Contents are derived and the children in Adelaide reflect a number of ‘common potential relevance of Australian archaeology as a means of erroneous beliefs’, most notably a strong association of achieving these stated learning goals. While any in-depth archaeology with dinosaurs. Taken together, these findings consideration of the situation outside Queensland is beyond suggest that Australian archaeology does not feature the scope of this analysis, a brief review of the various prominently in the mainstream learning activities of our education department websites reveals that learning areas primary and secondary schools. Nonetheless, there is strong broadly comparable to the Queensland SOSE syllabus exist anecdotal evidence that teachers are keen to incorporate within the school curriculum of all states and territories Australian archaeological experiences into their teaching (Table 1). plans when the opportunity arises and many Australian The Key Learning Area of the Queensland SOSE archaeologists actively seek to include school students in syllabus is achieved through Key Learning Area Outcomes their public outreach activities (e.g. Owen and Steele 2005). that contain Core Learning Outcomes and Discretionary One way of improving archaeological representation in Learning Outcomes (Figure 1). Core Learning outcomes are schools might be to consider how Australian archaeology those considered essential for all students to acquire during can be utilised to achieve curriculum outcomes beyond the the first 10 years of schooling. Discretionary Learning generally narrow association of archaeology with ancient Outcomes are those that go beyond what is considered history. By demonstrating the potential of Australian essential at any particular level (Queensland School archaeology to meet a wide range of existing educational Curriculum Council 2000:13). Core Learning Outcomes are goals across the school curriculum it may be possible to designed so that students gain understandings of natural and open up spaces for more formalised and ongoing cultural phenomena and their interactions in such areas as involvement of the profession in both the theoretical and group formation, material culture, past ideas, events and practical

Load more